An Indispensible Part of Catholic Social Doctrine

In his January 7th
address to the members of the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, Pope
Benedict XVI said that “the increasing differences between those few who grow
ever richer and the many who grow hopelessly poorer, should be a cause for dismay.”
[1]
The Pope didn’t add anything to Catholic doctrine with this statement. The Catechism
of the Catholic Church mentions the “sinful inequalities that affect millions
of men and women,” [2]
and declares that these “are in open contradiction of the Gospel….” The
Catechism goes on to say this:

“Their equal dignity as persons
demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive
economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human
race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human
dignity, as well as social and international peace.”

The teaching about income
inequality is not a dispensable part of Catholic social doctrine. Unjust
economic inequality being “in open contradiction of the Gospel,” Catholics
ought to be alerted that the situation commands the highest level of attention.
Unfortunately, the political lines that have been drawn in the United
States have caused some to shun the
importance of the issue, thereby ceding it to forces unfriendly to the Church
and her mission.

What to do about income
inequality is, of course, a further question to be explored. It should be
pointed out that those who would decry as unjust income redistribution through
taxation will not find support in Catholic social teaching which, while it upholds
the right to private property, also holds that the “goods of creation are
destined for the whole human race,” [3] that political “authority
has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to
ownership for the sake of the common good,” and that the “the appropriation of
property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and
for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his
charge.”

Still, most people hope for
better for themselves than being welfare recipients. While there is no excuse
to be found in the fact that receiving welfare is not the optimum goal of human
life for the failure of a society to provide it where it is needed, there can
be no doubt that conditions where people support themselves through their own
work are more conducive to human flourishing. That is why society has an
obligation to “help citizens find work and employment.” [4]

But employment ought to eliminate
the need for welfare for the person employed. That only happens, however, if
the wage is adequate for the employee to support himself or his family. If the
wage is not adequate an injustice is being perpetrated. As the Catechism says:

“A just wage is the legitimate
fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In
determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must
be taken into account. ‘Remuneration for work should guarantee man the
opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the
material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role
and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.’ Agreement
between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be
received in wages.” [5]

Calculation of the proper wage
meeting this standard entails some complication to be sure, and will vary from
place to place. The United States Department of Health and Human Services’s
poverty guidelines sets the poverty line for the year 2012 at $23,050.00 for a
family of four. [6]
If unpaid sick days and holidays are disregarded, that works out to $11.08 per
hour. But the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour [7], insufficient
to bring a family of four even up to the poverty line.

There are those who will say that
raising the minimum wage to a wage sufficient to support a family will reduce
the number of jobs that employers will be able to provide, and will, therefore,
increase unemployment. Indeed, some advocate for the abolition of the minimum
wage, arguing that unemployment will decrease as a result.

But the general well-being of a
society cannot be enhanced by the presence of workers consigned to poverty even
though they are employed. It will either result in social blights such as
wide-spread malnutrition, or it will require the rest of society to make up the
difference between the wages of such workers and what is required to have their
needs met. What’s more, if social services are not forthcoming for those who
are unable to support themselves and their families by means of their wages,
there will be an incentive for those so afflicted to supplement their income
through criminal activity. There is little rationality in the expectation that
people will passively starve where they are surrounded by abundance possessed
by others.

Tax incentives could be a
solution to counteract the increase of unemployment that might be otherwise occasioned
by the increase in minimum wages. Businesses that pay workers living wages are
providing a public service that should be rewarded. Those who pay poverty
wages, thereby rendering their employees public charges, are harming society,
and should receive no tax benefits at all.

Income disparity becomes
unrighteous when those at the bottom level of income are unable, by their
income, to provide for their basic needs with dignity. Every legitimate vision
for social reform should include the rectification of this inequity in American
society.